Wow couldn't believe the rankings. No NFL teams in the top 100. No MLS teams in the top 250 something like that. And most are soccer clubs in the rankings.

46and2

Post #3

Tuesday April 15, 2014 8:49pm

Joined Dec 2012
Total Posts: 54

Some of those numbers do look surprising on the surface, but may make a little more sense if you delve into them a bit. Joya is on loan from Santos, so that $54K may well only represent a portion of his overall salary. Santos may still be paying a good bit of his compensation. Chicago has an option to buy at the end, so I guess we'll see when/if that happens.

Pappa was good at Chicago, but flamed out at Heerenveen and was released before the end of his contract. He's been middling for Seattle so far, so I agree that it is a low salary, particularly for a guy that plays for his national team, etc. but he's struggled of late and was out of contract when he was signed.

Similar with Rivas. He has a good resume, but he had health problems (collapsed in training), injuries, loans, and ultimately had his contract terminated. So he was out of contract and looking for an opportunity when he was signed too.

Obviously we know what happened with Davies and he would have been on DP money or never come home if things were different.

Riley being an experienced player that has usually played regularly even though he has bounced around a bit... that's a little surprising that his salary is that low. A few of the others are surprising too... It's odd that O'Neill bypassed college and signed a homegrown deal for that kind of money.

Much of what's wrong with our league, in that picture.
I am not against some forced parity, but this is like a sham of how to do it.

And yes, I did disagree with the spending problem when it was LAG up top.
More development, fewer $7M players playing with $50K players.

Also, that chart makes me want to become an SKC fan, holy crap.

Anyway, as I've pitched you guys before, we need a double-season that's regional for the first half, split up by time zones; and then a super-league made of the first-half-season's top teams for the second half, while the lower teams go home-and-home again. It fixes the time zone and travel problems for most of the year.
approx 4 divisions times approx 10 teams

It has a sort of pro/rel built into it, it has room for pro/rel at the bottom, and almost all of your team's game are at a good time of day for you.
More development should happen, and you can loan your development players across to one of the other divisions without it hurting you.

Pay me, MLS. Pay me.

Rey Regicide

Post #9

Friday October 6, 2017 2:25pm

Joined Sep 2013
Total Posts: 2,001

Original post from mmee

Much of what's wrong with our league, in that picture.
I am not against some forced parity, but this is like a sham of how to do it.

And yes, I did disagree with the spending problem when it was LAG up top.
More development, fewer $7M players playing with $50K players.

Also, that chart makes me want to become an SKC fan, holy crap.

Anyway, as I've pitched you guys before, we need a double-season that's regional for the first half, split up by time zones; and then a super-league made of the first-half-season's top teams for the second half, while the lower teams go home-and-home again. It fixes the time zone and travel problems for most of the year.
approx 4 divisions times approx 10 teams

It has a sort of pro/rel built into it, it has room for pro/rel at the bottom, and almost all of your team's game are at a good time of day for you.
More development should happen, and you can loan your development players across to one of the other divisions without it hurting you.